Celtic fans have a right to protest over Boyata and more but we should keep our powder dry - for now

It's remarkable, after two consecutive trebles, to be talking of Celtic getting "out of the woods" but the actions, inactions and inexcusable failings of some at the club have contrived to dampen the mood

amongst supporters.

One of the key figures in this unrest - though by no means alone - has been Dedryck Boyata.

Now, I am no fan of Dedryck. I would have been content to see him leave before any of the recent fiasco that led to him apparently refusing to play for us when we needed him most.

So, I sympathise with those who booed him during yesterday's match with Hamilton Accies.

Personally, I would not have booed him in the current circumstances, though I take no issue with those who felt it right to do so.

Likewise, the Green Brigade's banner declaring him unfit to wear the Celtic shirt reflected a sentiment that would be shared by many Celtic supporters but,which I took as indicative of their desire to be noticed as “thought leaders” as much as making a noteworthy statement.

On the other hand, neither did I agree with applauding Boyata's every early touch, though again some felt that appropriate.

But, more to the point is the elusive issue of what is best for Celtic at this time.

We have had a couple of weeks to not so much forget as to recover from.

Exiting the Champions League, a bad defeat to Hearts, transfer chaos, negativity and speculation.

But we have a crucial seven days ahead that will do much to define our season.

We have a job to do against Suduva on Thursday and, while we should be more than up to it, complacency is the absent father of delinquent humiliation.

We also have a match with our newest rivals The Rangers on Sunday.

And, if we should not define ourselves in relation to any other club, never mind one in its primary school years, it is clear to see that the fans of The Rangers, particularly those in the mainstream media, take great comfort from any perceived relative negatives that we experience.

So, while not one of those bloggers who would dare to tell Celtic fans that they have no right to protest, I would humbly suggest that our immediate interests would be best served by keeping our powder dry until Sunday evening.

What we need from our team is to settle down, calm the defence and get back to dominating our competitors.

I hoped for a better score against Accies but we got three points and a clean sheet.

A solid win against Suduva without conceding would set us up for the match against Steven Gerrard's super-staunch wonderbears.

Now, we don't know what personnel will be available to us and that will be significant.

But, if we have the luxury of starting with Moussa Dembele and Odsonne Edouard, I will be highly confident of our ability to score against a much-praised defence that has conceded five goals in three league games.

And that is by no means to dismiss the considerable talents of Leigh Griffiths, who really should score his 100th goal for us on Sunday. I simply feel that the power that both Odsonne and Moussa possess should overwhelm most defences.

I don't know who we'll have at the back and I'm not sure who we SHOULD play (except for Kieran Tierney and Kristoffer Ajer - praying that we will still have both).

But the next week will also be highly significant for our next Scottish opponents, who will be returning from a trip to Russia that will be highly significant to their finances.

And then they will face the best team in Scotland, hopefully on the way back up and united both in the stands and on the pitch.

Sometimes, even when faced with legitimate grievance, canniness is more useful than catcalls.

And that's where "keeping your powder dry" comes in. It means choosing to fire at the time that suits us, not our opponents.

There will be time enough to discuss the villains worthy of our opprobrium from the early evening of Sunday onwards.

But, if the management, players and fans can unite for the good of what Tommy Burns famously called "the cause", then we should have happier discussions.

We're still the best in Scotland. Let's remember that.--

Celtic - we have the drama. Let's not turn it into a crisis

 I still think that we must be positive, even if recent events may have resulted in this article being "a little uneven".

Well, it is what it is, as Americans might say.  Our transfer activity has been disappointing, to say the least.

That has clearly irked our manager, despite what anyone tells you.

And I'm not going to become an apologist for any of this.

We should have done much better and, as a fan, I have been angered as well as disappointed by the failings since we won our historic double treble.

I am also deeply disappointed, though not surprised, by our Champions League exit.

Deep down, I thought that four qualifying rounds would probably be too big an ask.

And, faced with a squad that is weaker than the one we finished last season with, that looked likely to end in tears.

With adequate recruitment, we probably could have pushed through.

And there is little consolation in the fact that we are in the Europa League.

But we are where we are and we still have a chance to reset the surprising plunge into negativity in recent weeks.

And we must.

In terms of European football, reaching the last eight of the Europa League should be the target. That would constitute progress.

To do that, we will have to recruit quality players - ones identified and approved by Brendan Rodgers.

We all know that we need defenders, probably a midfielder and most likely a striker. (Persuading Moussa Dembele to extend his contract would deal with the striking issue.)

But the point is this: Celtic have prospered riding a wave of positivity since the day Brendan Rodgers greeted the fans as our new manager.

Yet, in recent weeks, the atmosphere has changed to the extent that everything seems to be viewed in a negative light.

That is not all the fault of the mainstream media, however much the established titles have actively lost the trust of Celtic fans through their own failings and often deliberate actions.

But the important thing is that it all plays into the hands of those who wish to undermine us and bring an end to our success.

And, especially when faced with real domestic challenges, we should not allow that to happen.

The transfer window remains open and the opportunity to strengthen the squad, meaningfully, is still there.

However, on the back of the John McGinn fiasco, the club has mired us in another embarrassing distraction over Scott McKenna, who, we are now told, will not be joining us.

There is still a chance for everyone at Celtic or who supports the club to rewind and, again, push a positive mindset.

And I believe that we need to do that.

What we have now is an atmosphere of recrimination, which I have done my small part in creating.

I still have little time for Peter Lawwell and his "plan" and that includes the recruitment of Lee Congerton in the "what's he for?" category.

People talk about Marvin Compper being a bad signing - Congerton and Lawwell seem to have contrived to actively repel players from joining us.   And, all the while, several of our rivals seem to be getting stronger.

But the transfer window doesn't shut until 31st August.

And so, without "happy clapping" or diminishing any of the real let-downs of the past few months, maybe we all need to contribute to the positive focus that has been vital to our recent success.

And, by "we", I naturally include Peter Lawwell and the board.

Those lauded individuals should be the ones to take the lead, face up to their own mistakes and prove that they will take all necessary steps to secure the players who the manager prefers.

So let's have an end to the insinuations that the problems we have faced are largely to do with coaching.

(You know, the people who question the "convertion" rate of the forwards while stressing that the defensive lapses are not due to poor recruitment but coaching.)

We need not and cannot go on in a manner that only assists those who do not wish us well.

We can all play our part in creating the most positive environment possible for our team to play in.

But we need to see signs that complacency is not an issue, either from the executives or that they believe that the fans will be complacent while they mess up.

The issues that concern us are real.

But we should address them in a way that makes us stronger.

We have a little more than a week to do that, to reassert our hard-won dominance of the Scottish game and compete in European competition in a manner to make us proud.

Those who wish to see that, will be the ones prepared to stand up publicly, instead of hiding until the storm passes.

We will learn a lot in the coming days.   --

Celtic PLC – Peter Lawwell Capitalism

I have never met Peter Lawwell. And I don't care to.

This is unlikely to cause him sleepless nights.

I somehow suspect that there would be a minimal interface between our values but that doesn't matter a jot.

I have no desire for titbits from the top table, the kudos of being considered "in the know" or being able to humble-brag about landing a high-profile interviewee.

As a minor blogger, I have little of substance to offer and, as a Celtic fan, my importance is inconsequential. Easily-dismissed, barely missed and of negligible cash value.

Like you – or at least the vast majority of people who may take the time to read this blog.

(I hope you will not feel insulted by my being so presumptuous as to lump you in with me.)

But, as someone with no traction within the Celtic support to offer, there are other reasons why I suspect that Lawwell and I would have little in common.

To do with Celtic – in terms of ethics, vision and values.

I should start with my caveats. I don't believe that Lawwell is incompetent or unethical in the sense that would debar him from other executive positions.

He's no Craig Whyte, Charles Green or Dave King.

I don't believe that he would break the rules or bend the law in the manner that people at some clubs have done and do. And nor, I am sure, would he sanction such practices.

But there are other values, ethics and even professional practices that are anathema to me and which I believe will continually hobble Celtic unless they are rooted out.

And that, I believe, will only be possible when Peter Lawwell takes a bite of one of those sweet, fat cherries that we are continually told are regularly dangled in front of him and brings his expertise to another club.

Apparently, there are many to choose from.

Now, there are many Celtic bloggers, including some which you and I know are "close" to Peter Lawwell and the board of Celtic plc.

These are popular as their adherents like to believe they are close to the inside track at Celtic. By being on first-name terms with some blogger, they may boast about "one degree of separation" from the head honcho at Celtic Park.

Many of these like to bring their own knowledge of the business world and the complexities that naive, plebeian fans could never hope to appreciate.

It's not "the economy, stupid", as William Clinton used to say, it's "asset-management, idiot", in case you didn't know.

Because, you see, there are things at football clubs that lowly football fans can never understand.

You may think that football players' primary value relates to their performances on the pitch.

Oh, how you are to be pitied – with as much kindness and understanding that will allow you to recognise your foolishness but not alienate you to the extent that you will stop investing in the club.

Let me delicately tell you that footballers – Celtic-players, if you wish – are like property (real estate, as our American cousins might say).

It doesn't matter how nice or impressive they look, and far less how well they perform their notional function.

No, you see – and don't be embarrassed (because a lot of fans are as misguided as you) – football players are assets to be bought low and sold high.

Stay with me.

Take Scott Brown. One major Celtic blogger, who campaigned against buying players from Dundee United and Hibs, considers the signing of Scott to be a disaster.

For years, the said blogger was advocating selling Scott.

Don't feel stupid if you disagreed – even the smuggest blogger in the Celtic blogosphere regularly boasts about thinking that Scott was a great signing.

But don't you see why signing Scott was an abject failure?

Yes, I know. In your innocence, you probably think that signing a young Scottish footballer with huge potential, one who went on to captain his country and our club to a historic double-treble was a success.

11 years of outstanding service, blah, blah. Taking his place amongst the Celtic all-time greats, yawn.

Have you no idea of how much money Celtic could have made if we had sold Scott Brown before he reached his peak?

Now, I know you aren't stupid enough to have thought that, because Brendan Rodgers clearly wanted to sign John McGinn (painfully great debut for Villa), that spending about a third of the fee that we recouped for Stuart Armstrong would have been good business.

McGinn was already a Scotland International and 23 – so not a young player – and so there may have been a limit to his growth potential as an asset.

These are just a few examples of Lawwell-omics, the view that the playing squad is simply a collection of assets to be managed –bought low and sold high – which conveniently makes Peter Lawwell the most money.

Is this in any way compatible with building a team and gradually improving, year-by-year?

Of course not!

Continually seeking performance improvements is literally inconsistent with managing an asset portfolio based on buying low and selling at peak value.

You see, ideas that you may have of seeing promise in the team and looking forward to getting a little better the next season – and again and again ad infinitum – simply show you to be a fool.

Like me.

A few days ago, I noted that no Celtic manager since John Barnes had been sacked but neither had any left for a better job,. That's pretty damned amazing.

Equally amazing is that none of these managers have uttered a bad peep about their time at Celtic.

There are various possible explanations for this phenomenon.

1. Everything was just peachy and these guys left for reasons unconnected to the activities of the board.

2. No outgoing manager since Barnes wanted to rock the boat (Wim Jansen did a bit of boat-rocking but only criticised Jock Brown. )

3. They all sign a non-disclosure agreement as part of their contracts with Celtic and therefore can't say that all in the garden is not rosy.

Think about the times we have had – the managers who have come and gone – the times of great hope that were followed by deep disappointment due to the quiet policy of managed decline.

What are your values, hopes and aspirations with regard to Celtic?

Mine are to see a team of players on the field worthy of carrying our tradition as one of the great clubs in world football.

I want the best players to be encouraged to stay with us in their best years.

I want to see us building on success, in a sustainable manner, and believing that the next season should be better than the last.

I want to see us supporting Brendan Rodgers in every way, particularly in his club-building efforts, and never undermining him.

I want to see us focusing on football, not obsessively on finance.

One of the biggest weaknesses we have, in my opinion, is the fact that we do not have football people by any measure working with Brendan Rodgers but, instead, have one of the best coaches we have ever had working with a specific form of capitalism.

You see, in my world, there is more than one type of capital.

For example, the people who buy season tickets, merchandise and plough their money into the club in various other ways, invest more than money.

To me, those fans who invest money – often more than they can afford – are also investing a kind of capital.

Sadly, it's the most easily-scorned form of capital, and yet the purist. It's the emotional capital of hoping that their investments in the club's vision will bring pride, joy and lasting memories.

But, as with the boiler-room scammers who robbed countless pensioners and other vulnerable people of their savings, Celtic's Peter Lawwell Capitalism cares nothing for those who staked their real money on an unreal dream.

And that is the problem for Celtic supporters.

The evidence of Peter Lawwell's entire tenure as Chief Executive points to a supporters' experience of constantly building hope, investing their money and being disappointed when things were really looking up.

Every tantalising dream results in frustration.

Again and again and again.

Would it be so bad if – this time – we kept our exceptional coach, Brendan, and experimented with a new Chief Executive, and one who doesn't make money out of selling our best players?

It could be win-win for everyone.

Peter Lawwell gets the money his talents apparently deserve; Brendan Rodgers has to deal with a "Head of Recruitment" he believes in and the club formulates a plan that sees continual improvement on the field as a good thing, rather than a reckless ambition.

Think about it – it's not so crazy.

Is it? --

We all love Emilio - but Izzy the answer for Celtic?

After a trying week for Celtic, one piece of news with the feelgood factor was the return of Emilio Izaguirre as cover for Kieran Tierney at left-back.

It's not at all hard to love Izzy and most fans do.

A player who is never gave less than his all (as he noted himself) those years of flying down the left wing have not been forgotten by the fans and he left to real affection and well-wishing from the supporters.

That's all well and good and I'm happy for him as he seems so pleased to have made his return.

From a football point of view, however, I'm not sure quite what this tells us about recruitment policy at the club.

Those who remember Izzy's early days will recall the expectation that those exciting early displays would lead to big-money bids from English clubs (with speculation that Manchester United were considering a move).

But, such is the power of social media that before long the wise amongst us were mostly agreeing online that there was a problem with his positional sense.

For my part, I predicted that Izzy would leave as, fine player that he is, I couldn't see him fitting into Brendan Rodgers's style of play.

His running and crossing can be excellent - he could easily have found a place in Martin O'Neill's Celtic teams - but I didn't think his touch was quite right for the quick passing that Brendan favours.

So, what has changed?

Was it a blunder to let him go and did Brendan really rate him and want to keep him? (He will have made good money in Saudi Arabia and good luck to him for that.)

Or is there more to the move than meets the eye?

Calvin Miller has looked promising but, at 20, is perhaps not considered ready to be considered as reliable cover for that 21-year-old veteran Kieran.

That's fair enough and if the Izzy move is to take pressure off Calvin while Kieran remains as our left-back, then we can all breathe a sigh of relief.

But let's be clear about something.

Having Izzy supporting Kieran is fine. Bringing back a popular player because, for example, Kieran might be sold is not fine at all.

We can all make mistakes and reversing a bad decision (if that's what letting Izzy go was) is smarter than ploughing on, rather than admitting a mistake.

But two days after Brendan expressed his displeasure at missing out on John McGinn, there is room for scepticism as to whether bringing Izzy back is a move that Brendan really wanted or an admission that Peter Lawwell and the board have no intention of supporting Brendan in terms of developing the squad.

So, who signed Izzy - Brendan or Peter?

And, if the answer is the latter, then no amount of love for Izzy is going to bring us much joy in the time to come.
--

Celtic in Crisis? No, but bad omens after Lawwell loses John McGinn poker game

Too often blaming the mainstream media gives an easy out to Peter Lawwell and the Celtic board. We could lose Brendan Rodgers

Commodities

I once watched a documentary about craftsmanship in which a man proudly showed off one of his greenwood chairs. (A traditional method of woodworking using the natural moisture of the wood to create strong joints without glue or  metal.)

"That costs £700," he told the shocked person who inquired.

As justification, he said: "Well, I like to try to pay myself £10 an hour and it takes me 70 hours to make one chair."

Fair enough but when you can get a functional chair from IKEA for one twentieth of that price - both of which will support your backside quite acceptably, it's a tough sell.

But for some, only the greenwood chair would do while others will shell out even more for the one-off designer seat that captures their heart.

Now before you kindly offer help in recovering my marbles, let me say that I do realise that footballers are different to chairs in a number of key ways.

Firstly, they are people, not commodities, though the archaic transfer system might lead you to think otherwise.

Secondly, they have minds of their own and are capable of making their own decisions.

But, as a third point, footballers have something in common with any other item for sale - they are worth whatever someone is prepared to pay for them.

It is not clear that Peter Lawwell or the Celtic board recognise any of these key points. And that's a problem - perhaps a big one.

The John McGinn saga is one of the sorriest Celtic affairs of recent times, though by no means

without precedent.

Steven Fletcher and Kevin Thomson both spring to mind as players who the manager clearly wanted but who Lawwell either thought surplus to requirements or that he had a better-value alternative on hand.

With McGinn, you have read many unqualified opinions on the player's ability or lack of it - including from this blogger.

But a more expert opinion was apparently scorned - that of our manager Brendan Rodgers.

And, even if you have already declared McGinn of insufficient quality to get a game for Celtic, that should give you cause for concern.

The pluck of the Irish 

I have already put my  hands up to the fact that I was totally wrong about Brendan Rodgers before he took the reins at Celtic.

I could make excuses but the fact is that I didn't rate him as a candidate. And that causes me embarrassment. Because I really should have informed myself better, with a more open mind, and recognised just how good Brendan was and is.

We are extremely lucky to have him at Celtic and the shakers and movers at just about every switched-on club in Europe see that, too.

We have had a lot of excellent coaches in many ways but, in terms of being at the cutting edge of top-level football knowledge, I have no hesitation in saying that Brendan is our most outstanding manager since Jock Stein.

Anyone who reads this blog (and, if we can get the numbers, we might get a five-a-side team going) will, I hope,  realise that, while  not shy with my opinions, I rarely indulge in hyperbole.

But, as an admirer of Martin  O'Neill, Gordon Strachan, Neil Lennon and - yes - Ronny Deila, I have seen a level of coaching at Celtic that we would have been highly unlikely to have enjoyed had we not been a magical club who just happened to have a real Celtic man - a genuine one of our own - amongst the top tier of coaches.

The media will conveniently forget that the fantabulous Steven Gerrard, having played under Houllier, Eriksson, Capello and many more described our Brendan as the best one-to-one coach he had ever worked with.

But now, I fear, that's under threat.

3-5-7

When Brendan took over at Celtic, I listened to his interviews and he talked of having been "in a hurry", as young men usually are, in his earlier coaching career.

It was wonderful - let's not forget that he was made the bookies' second-favourite to be the next England manager within a couple of weeks of signing on at Celtic.

So, that, logically, brought the  numbers of 3, 5 and 7 to my mind.

If true to his word, he saw the Celtic job as lasting a minimum of three years - anything less would be consistent with a "man in a hurry", itching to get his next big opportunity.

As a coach and manager who has a reputation as seeing himself as a club-builder, five years would seem a more likely period in the job.

And, as Brendan has also said that he expects to be a coach for more than 20 years, a productive five years at Celtic seemed a solid prospect. Club-building, you see, involves player development with a view to the future.

To leave a club with a solid foundation for the future and to lay the groundwork for replacing a legendary captain over the next three or four years. Leaving something lasting.

For example, signing the player who Scott Brown himself praised to the heavens just a couple of weeks ago. Less secure players than Scott might have felt threatened by efforts to recruit a footballer who is so often compared to the great man himself.

But Scott signalled that there would be no tension between himself and John McGinn.

Can you see just how much McGinn was wanted by the football people at Celtic?

(For my part, I'll say that we might just have lost the captain of Celtic in 2021-2025).

My expectation was for a three-to-five-year tenure of Brendan. My wildest dreams were of seven years.

I dream of that no more.

Language, Timothy! 

Now, while the search facility offers copious evidence of my complaints against the Celtic board and Chief Executive - the vast majority of which I stand by - I am as sceptical of and hostile to the mainstream media shills who often do, in fact, mischievously sow the seeds of grief amongst Celtic supporters.

I've slagged almost all of them and, again I stand by almost all of it.

This week, the BBC's Chris McLaughlin was getting it for saying that the board were unhappy with Brendan's comments on the transfer window activity.

But, while I am decidedly NOT one of those "in the know" bloggers with impeccably-placed sources, dear reader, I do know a few things beyond the fiduciary duty of other clubs' executives (I know you read it, guys, because you parrot it occasionally with never a "chapeau".)

One of my interests is in the art of coaching, to which end I have read several biographies and autobiographies of football managers.

A recurring theme that I have noticed, from Alex Ferguson down (in the modern era) and from all the great Celtic managers is the importance of psychology.

And I can say, without fear of reasonable rebuke, that there is no manager in football more aware of the weight that his words carry than Brendan Rodgers.

(Trust me - you'll see this in other blogs, claiming that they always knew this.)

Now, remember that I don't know Brendan. If I did, I'd surely have trumpeted him from the heavens as the next Celtic boss.

But I do know, for example, that Brendan has studied neuro-linguistic programming for several years.

If you aren't aware of NLP, it can be roughly summarised as a practice attempting to achieve positive results through managing thought patterns through specific techniques, with a strong emphasis on language.

For example, when you make a silly mistake, do you say to yourself, "I'm so stupid", or something similar? Many of us do.

NLP theory says that the first voice we hear is our own and that we undermine our own confidence by using that language to ourselves.

Instead, why not say: "I made a mistake so I'll learn from it and do better the next time"?

Do you remember Jack Hendry after the Rosenborg match? (I don't believe that Brendan is educating players in NLP, but that they are echoing his positive language).

How often have you heard Brendan criticise the team or say anything negative about them?

How many times can you recall him saying, for example, "We didn't finish well enough" or "We didn't defend well"?

They are both negative statements, whereas "we could have scored more goals" and "we can defend better" are the sort of positive statements Brendan usually prefers.

On top of that, having been at one of the richest clubs in Europe, Brendan has had top-level media training.

That's partly why he is so adept at sidestepping the booby-trap questions that the media throw at him.

And the point of all of this is that Brendan is fully aware of the impact of his words.

So, when he chose to speak so negatively about transfer activity on the day his side had a vital Champions League qualifier with AEK, you better believe that he really is angry and that's not just another media fabrication.

I am confident that he will remain with us until the end of the season. Because, apart from anything else, he is on record as saying that managers should take new jobs before the season starts.

And, of course, in May he will have completed the minimum three-year period of a man not in a hurry.

Que sera, sera

But, dedicated to Celtic as Brendan is, he is also clearly conscious of his reputation and future aspirations.

For example, never mind the English Premier League, he is known to aspire to some day work in Spain.

He will not be so loyal to Celtic as to see his own reputation damaged due to the "Plan" of Peter Lawwell, who - let's not forget - gets a player-trading bonus each year and is therefore incentivised to favour selling over buying.

And the sad fact is that I doubt that Lawwell cares.

He has increasingly been allowed to run Celtic as he sees fit, seeing managers come and go, and using friendly "independent" Celtic bloggers to tell us that's just how it had to be.

He also knows that Neil Lennon and Steve Clarke would both likely jump at the chance to replace Brendan.

It's a remarkable fact that the last Celtic manager to be sacked was John Barnes.

It's equally remarkable that no Celtic manager since Barnes has resigned because he was lured away by a better offer.

Every single one has chucked it for different reasons that were never really made clear.

Time and time again, Celtic fans have thought we were on the road to something special, only to find that some unforeseen change had set us back.

Peter Lawwell and the board can keep Brendan Rodgers for the key five years and maybe longer if they want him.

But that will involve supporting him in his vision of building a strong Celtic for the future, not just pocketing the tens of millions of pounds that he has already made them.

So, do they want Brendan to remain at Celtic, continually building supporters' hopes in a manner that requires funding or do they want someone to make the most money out of the least possible investment while doing deals between Lawwell and his son, Mark, at Manchester City?

What is Peter's plan this time?
 --

Novo and Limmy: A handful of Celtic fans leave an open goal to critics

The season has started - fairly well for Celtic - and yet, the Scottish mainstream media are awash with negative stories about the club.

Same old, same old, you may say. But there are lessons to be learned from the actions of a few fans, that have given fuel to those who wish to incinerate our reputation as the best fans in the world.

The targets - who prefer  to be known as victims - are two men for whom I haven't the least time.

One - Nacho Novo - was a thoroughly unpleasant player who had such a desire for recognition that, long after he had hung up his well-used studs, he took to social media throwing the most vile of insults at Celtic and our fans.

The other, who prefers to be called "Daft Limmy" is the embodiment of a proudly non-intellectual underclass creating trash TV. Take Homer Simpson, drain him of charm or wit, give him a  Scottish accent and a TV show and you have Brian Limond.

He has his adherents, but then so do burgers made from mechanically-recovered meat, which you can at least make look like something roughly palatable.

So, how were these two men involved in dragging the name of Celtic through the dirt?

With a little help from "our friends", of course.

Firstly, we had the moron who decided it was funny to sing the cringe-worthy "May you die in your sleep, Nacho Novo," song.

That song was truly embarrassing when Novo was playing.

But, during a match you might make (very lame) excuses that it was all terracing banter, the sort of thing  that only comes out when people get carried away by the crowd and the atmosphere.

It still didn't make it acceptable but then again excuses are generally made for the unacceptable.

What kind of mind - or absence of the same - you must possess to wish to sing such a song to the person's face while going about his business, I would not care  to speculate.

In what circumstances would that be OK?

I could go through the plethora of reasons why there are none but that would be to insult anyone reading this as it surely needs no explanation.

Limmy

When we come to the "Limmy" incident, that's of an entirely different nature.

For those who don't know, on the day that Danny McGrain unfurled our seventh consecutive championship flag at Celtic Park, Limond tweeted that he thought Danny had died, having been electrocuted in his loft, adding, "Who am I thinking of?"

Some younger fans may not know that he was referring to Danny's teammate and friend, the late and much-loved Johnny Doyle who died in that tragic accident.

He was called out on his bad taste - his signature style - and, instead of apologising for the  genuine hurt and offence caused, he doubled-down, insisting that his comment was made out of innocent ignorance and attempting to moralise against his critics at the same time.

Limond, you see, (unlike his brother David who was sent to prison for orchestrating a campaign of harassment against a Celtic-supporting journalist),  knows nothing about the "Old Firm" and therefore, in Limmy World, he can say what he likes, even openly musing about the death of 68-year-old Danny on a day, which should have been all about honouring one of the greatest-ever Celtic players and Scottish sportsmen.

His "defence" was as risible as his sense of humour but he had got what he was seeking - a reaction to add to his notoriety, in much the same way as he "innocently" tweeted about assassinating Donald Trump.

"Opps! Ooh-err! What have I said? I didnae know. I'm awful, aren't I? It's your own fault if you're offended!"

This was as snivelling a performance of publicity-seeking as you were likely to find.

But then two or three people speculated - joked? - about Limmy being stabbed. Naturally, they were from Celtic-affiliated accounts.

The result was that The Herald's Martin Williams (the man who reported that Rangers had died and has spent six years trying to make up for it) was given the opportunity that he had been waiting for.

The story was not a doubly-inappropriate comment on the deaths of Danny McGrain and Johnny Doyle but how bad Celtic fans were threatening someone who Williams apparently considers a national treasure.

And it has allowed Limond to get all the publicity he was seeking and capitalise on what he knows is an  anti-Celtic sentiment in much of the Scottish mainstream media.

(There are specific questions to be asked about Williams but that is for another time.)

Novo and Limond's separate conducts are not mitigated in any way by the actions of fools who would do Celtic fans a favour by finding something to do with their time other than associating themselves with Celtic.

But, if some fans don't have a sufficient moral compass to guide them away from the unacceptable, then they might instead try some common sense or, at the very least, refuse to give our critics what they want.

It has taken countless thousands of Celtic fans to build our reputation.

It only takes a handful to damage it. 

Getting it right -- and wrong. How I predicted last season's Celtic fortunes

Football predictions are great. They are usually made with not one iota of insight or expertise and are therefore usually wrong.

On the plus side, the majority of people are blessed with an inability to recall the screeds of nonsense written before a season starts so it's a relatively hazard-free pastime.

But not for this blogger, dear reader (sorry!). I am proud of my wrongness and unbearably smug on those occasions when I am right. Fortunately, that happens with a frequency that allows my acquaintances to find me tolerable.

But here's what I said and I think you'll find it was largely unremarkable.

After that build-up, presumably you are excited, so without further delay...

The Treble

“Firstly, targeting the treble is usually ridiculous. Don’t get this wrong – Celtic should always intend to win any domestic tournament the club enters. But to expect to win all three again is just foolish....
“It can be done but probably won’t. If Celtic end another season unbeaten, we should all wait for the space ships to take us away from this doomed planet as it would surely be a sign that the powers that kept the world turning were broken.”

Spectacularly, gloriously, joyously wrong! But not one to be ashamed of.

Anyway, who would want to be proved right?

“But to win the League and do so comfortably must be the number one target. The 'comfort' part is important. Daylight between Celtic and Aberdeen (probably 15-20 points at the season’s end) takes pressure off players, allows some to be rested for what should be the late rounds of the Scottish Cup and lets Brendan Rodgers preserve some of the key performers by sparing them the last 15-30 minutes of games when their bodies are spent.”

Most of the above was a target, rather than a prediction, with the expected 15-20 points based on previous performances and an expectation that the squad would perform even better than last season.

The league win was still relatively comfortable but not in a way that allowed us to rest players much.

As for the points scored, the prediction was as follows:

1st Celtic P 38 W 29 D 6 L 3 Pts 93

Actual Result:

1 Celtic P 38 W 24 D 10 L 4 Pts 82
2 Aberdeen P 38 W 22 D 7 L 9 Pts 73

Perhaps the most pertinent point worthy of note is that it was Celtic's league performance, not Aberdeen's, which was short of the expectations that had already been tempered from the previous season's 106 points, unbeaten after only four draws and no defeats.

That was largely due to the introduction of a good Hibs side and a radically-improved Kilmarnock, the latter of which could not have been predicted at the time.

Also, notably, Aberdeen actually finished three points worse off than the previous season, in which they had reached and lost two cup finals.

So, it really was a matter of Celtic taking a step backwards from the incredible heights of the Invincibles season, albeit a slightly bigger one than could have reasonably been anticipated.

Scottish Cup

“Having (hopefully) won the league in April, we should be red hot favourites to lift the Scottish Cup to make it a double.
By that time, we should be able to focus on the late rounds with the luxury of not needing points or defending an unbeaten run.
Who would we face in the final? Probably Aberdeen or Hibs, who I expect to make a real go of it in their return to the top division, possibly finishing third behind Aberdeen.”

This was an easy enough prediction, though many pundits were less optimistic about Hibs' prospects (who eventually finished fourth).

Motherwell booting their way to the final was never on the radar and Hibs lost in the fourth round to Hearts, while the Dons went out to Well in the semis.

League Cup

“This is the least prestigious of the three tournaments and the one most likely to lead to disappointment, ending any hopes of back-to-back trebles.
“Again, Aberdeen or Hibs seem like the most probable winners, but any team in the top flight has a chance, including the two smaller Glasgow clubs.
“The major reason for this is that Celtic are likely to be heavily-involved in European competition and strongly focussed on the League campaign. Something usually gives in those circumstances, with players on the fringes of the first team likely to feature.
“So, with Celtic’s the scalp that everyone wants to take, a “shock” exit around the semis or quarter-finals seems a strong possibility.“

Nope, though the logic seems sound enough and the team did exceptionally well to balance all those domestic and European duties an win the cup.

Europe

“We are very good, our improvement has been beyond what just about any of us could ever have hoped for – but the gap in the league table doesn’t reflect how close we are to being a top European side....
Put your cuppa down because we’re not up to that standard – yet. But we’ll get better.
The thing about playing significantly inferior teams four times is that you can emphasise your (notional) 40% superiority four times a season. Celtic were 30 points better than the second-placed team but how well would Aberdeen do in any of the top German, Spanish, Italian, French or English leagues?
We should realistically aim to qualify for the group stages and then be playing for 3 or 4th place. And that’s where I think we’ll be."

Not bad but not so hard to predict, either, for those of us keeping our feet on the ground.

Summary

“So, for next season: a League and Scottish Cup double with a 3rd-place finish in the Champions League and a respectable showing in the Europa.”

Looking back on the season, you could argue that we did better or worse than expected, which is as convenient a way of hedging your bets as you can get.

What do I predict for next season?

Now, that's another story...--

Against Modern Football: Celtic censoring the Rosenborg match is not fair play but shameful

In recent times, on social media, fans' banners and even graffiti, the words, "Against Modern Football", have increasingly been seen.

This is not some Luddite slogan from those hell-bent on defying progress, nor yet an exercise in misty-eyed nostalgia, imagining that days gone by were without their faults.

Rather, it is an indictment on the practices associated with the corporate game of football today.

A sport that often seems to have lost its soul as the joy of the game is increasingly subordinate to the business interests of those who know everything about how to make money but care nothing for fair play in the boardrooms, on the field and in the stands.

Celtic choose to brand the the club, "like no other" and indeed there are many things that set us apart.

But, when it comes to commercial matters, it can be seen that Celtic is a club like very many others across the world.

Fans are only of worth in terms of their spending power and PR value.

If they help the team, create an exciting atmosphere, draw praise from the best players from the most famous clubs; good. But pay for the privilege, buy the tickets, the shirts (preferably all three) and subscribe to every paid service the club has to offer.

When clubs from the richest leagues come to town, it's a PR extravaganza, carrying "the brand" worldwide.

But clubs from smaller leagues - like Norway, for example - who cares?

Is the world going to buzz with news about Celtic playing Rosenborg? Probably not.

Similarly, there isn't likely to be a lucrative Norwegian market for shirts and merchandise.

Does that mean that Rosenborg fans don't deserve to watch their team in what Celtic fans hope will be their last round of Champions League football?

Apparently so. At least to some.

But, to others, the fact that Celtic are refusing to sell TV rights to the first leg against the Norwegian champions is nothing short of shameful.

It is an embarrassment to a club that often seeks to cash in on the image of a higher football ethos.

The inherent unfairness of the Champions League has rightly been bemoaned by all connected to Celtic.

It is simply wrong that the Scottish and Norwegian champions have to play each other in the second of four qualifying rounds.

But what is also wrong is the fact that only the Rosenborg fans able to travel to Celtic Park will be allowed the simplest right in football - to watch their team play.

The Celtic suits and their shield-bangers in the "independent" online community will tell you that this is necessary to protect Celtic from illegal streams and to encourage a solid turnout to back the team.

Cynics will say that Celtic are more worried about forcing fans to fork out the exorbitant prices for home matches when UEFA is not in control of the broadcast rights for the matches.

But bottom of the list of priorities - again - is the lowly football fan. You know - the ones who keep the damned game alive and awash with money that flows from the many to the few?

Few fans can travel to international away matches and many can't attend games at all.

But that matters little to the self-appointed censors at Celtic Park who hold in their hands access to, not one club, but two.

The fact that the early rounds of the tournament are overwhelmingly the preserve of clubs from smaller leagues makes this easy.

Rosenborg fans will, quite rightly, complain but few in the outside football world will listen.

And nor will the executives and directors of Celtic Football Club plc.

A corporate club, like any other.

Celtic Park no place for Bozos or Jozos - Simunovic has to go

In one of the most embarrassing misjudgements made even by this blogger, the defensive partnership of Jozo Simunovic and Dedryck Boyata was tipped as one to watch develop, a ball-playing defensive rock, powerful and calm, and one capable of holding its own against Europe's elite clubs.

That was after our first season under Brendan Rodgers and I suspect that many Celtic fans felt something similar.

But within a few months, Brendan was warning Jozo that he had to cut out the mistakes if he wanted to retain his place in the team.

Jozo didn't and he was promptly dropped with Brendan preferring Dedryck, Kristoffer Ajer,  Jack Hendry and even Marvin Compper, who increasingly looks like being a Gary Gillespie for the 21st century.

Through Belgium's World Cup exploits, another Compper injury and nerve-wracking recruitment, Jozo was given another chance against Alashkert - one  that he blew in some style.

With Rosenborg looming after an otherwise excellent early-season performance, what defender wouldn't lunge in with his studs showing, above waist height, in the middle of the pitch during the first 15 minutes?

Answer: any one with an IQ in excess of his continental shoe size - that's who!

While many were understandably putting team loyalty and disappointment ahead of the evidence of their eyes, Brendan was in no mood to point the finger at anyone other than the true culprit - the former Celtic defender, Jozo Simunovic.

I say, "former", as Brendan would surely trust Steven Gerrard with a pass-back rather than risk Celtic's fortunes with another outing from a player who is now causing some to fondly recall Oliver Tebilly.

Where he may go is another matter - perhaps some club without access to television might fancy him as a make-weight in a transfer move. Frankly, I don't care as long as he never again plays a competitive match for Celtic.

Trying to make real progress in European football is a difficult enough task without the booby-traps of random Simunovic moments.

It's a serious business with profound implications for our immediate and medium-term future.

It's not a job for Bozos - or Jozo.
--

Pride - in the Name of Celtic

Like many others in the Celtic support, I was brought up in a deeply-religious, Catholic family.

My mother was from County Donegal and an enthusiastic advocate - aka enforcer - of Catholic doctrine and dogma.

There were barely enough Masses in the year for mum, who grudgingly accepted the liberal reforms of the Second Vatican Council through deference to Papal infallibility, whether invoked by the Holy Father or not.

You could have accurately referred to her as a Catholic fundamentalist, well-versed in the Catechism that declared the only valid sexual activity as being "open to procreation within the confines of marriage".

I even once heard her quoting the American spiritual, "Give me that old-time religion".

I never said it was easy.

And like most brought up in the years before Eastenders scandalised British society with a pre-watershed Gay kiss, the idea of Gay equality was anathema to me.

Yes, I held the same prejudices as the vast majority of my peers and I doled out the homophobic epithets with the same frequency most "normal" people of the age.

I am not proud of that.

Though I refer to my Catholic upbringing, seeing homosexuality as some form of social disease was very much the accepted view of the time, outwith the extreme fringes of society.

I even remember a story of a young man who killed his cousin because he tried to kiss him. The charge was reduced from murder to manslaughter and he was given a short sentence as that sort of thing was considered extreme provocation outraging common decency.

Likewise, two men holding hands - never mind kissing - would be at a high risk of assault with charges unlikely to be brought against their assailants.

In my case, I gradually changed and I found myself a subject of grave concern when, as a supporter of the Scottish Fight the Clause campaign, literature arrived at the family home, the envelopes conspicuously stamped.

Ironically, the subject was considered too awful to talk about, so I was spared a grilling, which would likely have comforted my parents as I would truthfully have said: "I'm not Gay; I just don't think what's happening is right and I want to know more."

In 2018, we don't have to tiptoe around the subject of sexuality any more and many younger people may not recognise how different that is to the experiences of previous generations.

Sexuality is, in most societies, still one of the most vexed subjects in terms of morality and social norms.

One way or another, there always seem to be people looking to police what goes on it the bedroom (or other available venue) and we are usually brought up with values from our parents or others who we love and respect but whose values do not necessarily match ours.

My view is that we all retain the right to our own values and opinions but that we should not project our moral values on others who are doing no harm.

By that, I mean that tolerance means accepting the diversity of moral and religious or areligious values, most of which are genuinely held, as well as according equal respect to those whose expressions of their own selves are "different".

Celtic is "a club open to all". The Irish Catholics who landed in Scotland in the 19th century were "different" and branded unacceptable due to their beliefs, customs and behaviours.

And yet Celtic is  a club for Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Sikh, Atheist, Agnostic or any other believer or non-believer.

I'm proud of that fact.

I'm also proud that Celtic can openly offer an equally welcoming environment to people of any and all sexualities.

Anyone who wishes to support Celtic should be embraced with equal respect and, if the first high-profile Gay footballer in Scotland should happen to play for Celtic, I am confident that he or she would find that support from the Celtic family that has sustained many in the past.

The words should be synonymous.

Pride in the name of Celtic.
--

End racism - and Show Shay Logan the Red Card

I have a pal (really), Eamon, who has devoted most of his adult life to socialism.

He's one of those guys who left Labour behind years ago, as being a party incompatible with his socialist ideals. He is also the sort of guy who does unglamorous work in his community, like volunteering to referee kids' football matches that might promote integration and understanding between communities.

He is unlikely to ever get a medal for this and he would never seek one, despite doing more for the public good than many - more celebrated - elected politicians.

We broadly agree on the vast majority of subjects - politics of the left, trade unionism, anti-Fascism, ant-racism, a loathing of the Conservative party, disdain for Labour, being unconvinced by the SNP, etc. And we are both passionate about Celtic.

But we are also both forthright with each other and willing to let the other know when we disagree with certain opinions or actions.

One such occasion centred around one of those very matches that Eamon was giving up his free time to referee.

He recounted an unpleasant incident, when one boy accused another on the opposing team of using a racist epithet, during an increasingly niggly game.

Eamon immediately asked the other boy to apologise, which he refused to do, pleading his innocence. Eamon asked who had heard it and nobody else had.

The boy continued to deny using racist language and refusing to apologise until Eamon asked him, "Will you just say sorry, anyway - for me?"

The boy acquiesced, though still proclaiming his innocence,  which Eamon thought a good outcome.

But I disagreed and I said so.

Was that because I thought racism a trivial thing? No.

It was because I considered Eamon to have, in his well-meaning way, confused two fundamental principles - the right of someone claiming to be a victim to be taken seriously and believed against the right of someone facing a harmful accusation to defend his reputation, when faced with nothing stronger than the word of the accuser and innuendo.

These are sensitive situations and there are no perfect solutions.

But my point to Eamon was that some happenings are simply unjust and while nobody has a right to abuse another person, being coerced into apologising for something that you know you haven't done is intolerable to most people and, especially to a child, may leave a lingering scar and even plant the seed for an antipathy that was not previously there.

And so we come to Shay Logan.

We all know that Logan was racially abused by Aleksandr Tonev as it is a matter of official record with that redoubtable body, the Scottish Football Association.

Tonev was, you may recall, banned and his loan deal from Aston Villa cut short, based only on Logan's certainty that he had heard the words he claimed were uttered, though there was no corroborating evidence.

This decision was lauded by the likes of Tom English, to whom an accusation is as good as a conviction.

Now, if Tonev did make racist remarks, I would be the first to say that he should have been kicked out of  Celtic. And, even without that, I can't say that losing him has kept me up at night.

I know what it's like to be abused for my background and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

I also don't believe that people from certain minorities should keep quiet for fear of drawing bigoted attention to themselves. After all, we heard the Scottish media saying that about Neil Lennon, who was undoubtedly racially abused on a regular basis.

But I do object to the good name of Celtic being smeared by any unsupported allegations, as is happening now - coincidentally on the say-so of Shay Logan.

I intended to ignore his latest accusation as the attention-seeking it clearly was.

Because, let's face it, Logan is an insufferable idiot who, when not getting attention, uses his Twitter account to send some antagonistic message to Celtic fans and who declared the derisive boos that he so clearly seeks to be racist, when nobody was talking or even thinking about the dishwater-potent talents.

In doing so, he evokes the same logic  shown by Neymar, when the Tartan Army were ahead of the curve in booing his cheating in a friendly international. Neymar, apparently unable to think of any other reason for his being booed, declared the reaction to be racist.

And that was what the first and most-read headlines said.

But, today, Show Racism the Red Card Scotland, decided to pipe in, days late, with remarks decrying the Celtic supports reaction to Logan as "racist".

Of course, SRtRC offers no evidence, as they don't need to. The slur is enough and SRtRC, who not for the first time, appear to be a selective Scottish imitation of the more respected UK-wide group, have decided to sling mud when it suits them.

Are there racists within the Celtic support? Undoubtedly, and sadly, yes, as with every other type of buffoon.

Is it fair to describe fans as racists because they boo a player whose very raison d'etre seems to be to make the news by goading Celtic fans? No, it is not.

Logan simply follows in a line of players such as Ally McCoist and Nacho Novo, who get a kick out of annoying Celtic fans.

Steven Naismith and his manager Craig Levein are currently doing the same at Hearts.

Most clubs have players who enjoy the notoriety of seeing opposition fans getting angry and we have had our own.

When the new season starts, you can expect to hear the fans rain down abuse on Naismith, Levein, Kenny Miller, half the Motherwell team and management, Graeme Shinnie and Logan.

There may well be idiotic remarks amongst them and I would call on any fan who hears racist abuse to challenge it whenever they hear it. They will be strongly supported by fellow fans.

Logan and SRtRC have reduced the serious issue of racism in football to the level of a Sasha Baron Cohen Ali G routine.

You may find this hard to believe, Shaleon, but few Celtic fans care about you at all and those who do - almost without exception - simply think you're  a fool.

And the same goes for the Scottish branch office of SRtRC. --

Celtic in for John McGinn? If you know the history, the move would make sense

Anyone who reads this irregularly-published blog more than twice a year can tell you that I never shy away from saying, "I told you so".

I make no apology for doing so as I simply have a near-perfect memory for those occasions on which I have been proved right.

A cynic might suggest that's because they are so few in number but that's not true.

In fact, they are too many to count on the free fingers of my hands while I type this.

One of those times was my enthusiastic support for Scott Brown, from the outset. Scott's critics are a lot quieter these days but I still have their names in a sealed envelope in my desk.

But the memories some hold of the days when Scott signed (for ten times the price of Kenny Dalglish) seem to have dimmed.

It went like this. Neil Lennon, the most-targeted player in Scotland - by opponents, fans and media alike - was coming to the end of his historic captaincy of Celtic and Gordon Strachan was openly musing that he would leave a gap that would be extremely difficult to fill and perhaps impossible for one man to replace.

What Gordon meant was that he wanted the talented, battling young engine-room of Hibs - Scott and Kevin Thomson - to provide the foundation for the future of Celtic.

We now know that Celtic's Peter Lawwell allowed himself to be beaten to the punch by Walter Smith, seeing Thomson head off to Ibrox, by his own admission, taking the first offer to get away from John Collins.

Many - not least Derek Johnstone - expected Scott to follow his close pal and team-mate but the player had other ideas. Massimo Donatti - a good servant to Celtic - was recruited by Celtic's clever scouting operation deeming him a player who could do what Thomson did.

Apparently, this cleverness had omitted to account for the impact on both players and Celtic's ability to replace Neil with what might have been to Celtic and Scotland a midfield partnership to be spoken of with the same relish as the centre-backs, Miller-and-McLeish, was to Aberdeen and Scotland fans in the 1980s and 90s.

Personally, I had always quietly admired Thomson, though I much preferred Scott. (I recall an English friend spluttering that Thomson must be a player if I was complimenting a guy who had played for Rangers.)

While I may have digressed, Celtic are coming to another watershed moment, though planning for it with rather more foresight than when Scott was thrust into one of the most unforgiving positions Scottish football could offer and basically told: "Perform!"

Referees and a minuscule sense of fair play permitting, Scott's legs have a few seasons left to run but the void that he will leave will be no smaller than when Neil hung  up his boots for Celtic.

He is Celtic's captain, unquestioned leader, icon and, in this blogger's opinion, still our best player.

So, we do need to plan for that sad day when Scott finally takes his last bow for Celtic.

And it would be utter folly to try to find a replacement at the time. A comparable player would be far beyond the means of Celtic and, even then, by no means guaranteed to make that step  successfully, never mind immediately.

So, we absolutely must plan for a slow transition. And that's where John McGinn comes in.

Forget false comparisons between McGinn and Stuart Armstrong, which many have made. Armstrong has all the technical tools to be a top footballer but had never shown the stomach to be a Celtic captain or midfielder ready to take responsibility for all the good and bad that may happen to the club.

And, aside from that fact, they are players of very different styles.

The more direct comparison with Armstrong would be the vastly-superior Olivier Ntcham, who is a footballer of the highest quality. So much so that I believe that next summer's clamour will be for the signature of Olivier.

To turn a metaphor on its head, Olivier could be described as a velvet fist in an iron glove. He has such a good touch with both feet, as well as superb balance and reading of the game, yet his powerful physique enables him to show these skills when under intense physical pressure.

He shares many of these attributes with Moussa Dembele and these are highly-prized at the top levels of the modern international game.

So, appreciate Olivier while he is here, as I expect Europe's top clubs to be using a battering-ram on Celtic's front door, rather than knocking.

That leaves Eboue Kouassi, for whom I still retain hope. Eboue has made two massive cultural changes in just a few years, going to Russian and then to Scotland before he was twenty.

So, it shouldn't be a great surprise that he hasn't made a major impact in a year-and-a-half.

Eboue is another obvious contender to assume the mantle of Scott but, as with Neil Lennon, replacing our captain may be too big a job for one man (even, if for some different reasons).

So, we come to Hibernians' John McGinn.

Is he as good as Scott? Let me join in with those wailing, "No!", as if any player in Scotland could be, with Scott having swept all awards last season.

Could McGinn be as good as Scott? With similar dedication and excellent coaching, I think it's possible.

I do think that Scott had a bit more than McGinn when he came to Celtic. Then again, I had rarely seen a player with that unstoppable dynamism that Scott possessed, coupled with his instinct to create an attack when, in those days, he invariably rose first from a crumple of bodies and immediately looked to play the ball forward.

But I do see huge potential in McGinn and, given great coaching and top-level experience, I think that he has what it takes to develop into a future Celtic captain.

It's easy to forget that the coaching of Gordon Strachan and Brendan Rodgers, in particular, coupled with Scott's own maturing and intelligence have combined to produce a player who I wouldn't swap for anyone else in the world.

The criticism of McGinn saddens me, not least because of its merciless negativity.

As the great Tommy Burns once said, you should always focus on what a player CAN do for you, instead of what they can't.

John McGinn - the best player in Scotland last season, outside Celtic - can already do plenty of things in midfield.

Learning from Scott and coached by Brendan, I would like to see what else his game has to offer in green  and white.

The Hooped kind, of course.
--

More than 25 million reasons why Celtic want Kieran Tierney to leave

You're already fed up hearing about Kieran Tierney leaving Celtic and so am I – but some issues need to be addressed.

Many, in recent days have recalled the time when Kenny Dalglish – King Kenny, as he was known by then – was sold to Liverpool on the eve of the 1977-78 season and the disastrous impact that had on morale.

Mike Maher conveys much of the atmosphere at the time, in the excellent Celtic Star Mag:

The estimable David Potter, writing for the same site, makes references to the issue in two articles, which are somewhat odd as the first reads to me as a crudely sarcastic attack on fans who are upset at the prospect of selling Kieran (I struggle to believe that Mr Potter believes that the double treble would be rendered meaningless or that The Rangers would be likely to win the Scottish Premier League). A second piece seems to demand that Kieran be kept with sincerity. (Perhaps a rethink by Mr Potter.)

Kieran, already the Prince of Celtic Park, has no less potential than Kenny to assume the status of an all-time icon, though the circumstances of Kenny's departure were somewhat different.

As Mike Maher points out, losing Kenny was very clearly a sign that Celtic could no longer keep the best players and there have been few exceptions since then – Henrik Larsson and Scott Brown being two of a small number.

But this is the reality we have lived with since that summer's day in 1977 when Jock Stein was reported to have said, “Kenny, is there anything I can say to change your mind?”, before Kenny uttered a simple, “No,” and signed the contract.

Well aware of the coup in replacing Kevin Keegan with an even better player and the blow to Celtic – albeit for a British record transfer fee of £440,000 – Bob Paisley famously said: “We'd better get out of here before these people realise what we've done.”

(Accounting for inflation, that fee would be approximately £1.9m today.)

But the conditions at Celtic are very different today.

One fact almost lost in the annals of time is that, just prior to 1977-78, Celtic were the bookies' favourites to win the European Cup. Today, we are by no means certain of qualifying for the group stages of the Champions League.

Losing Kieran would make that extremely difficult task, a whole lot harder, particularly as he is the only defender in whom we can all be confident in the most vital games against quality opposition.

On the other hand, the rumoured £25m fee, would go a very long way towards compensating the club for any failure to reach the group stages of Europe's top tournament so it is likely that Peter Lawwell would consider a sale to be a “no-brainer”.

We all know what that money could do for Celtic – buy several more sets of fancy floodlights, for example.

But, seriously, huge money is tempting for Celtic as we operate on a very different financial level from clubs in England.

There would also be the potential added bonus (not the one that goes into Peter's bank account – that one is guaranteed) that players like Moussa Dembele would see the move as encouraging and tempt them to sign on, confident of being released for a big-money move in the future.

That's all very well and, in some regards, positive but what does it really say about Celtic as a football club?

To my mind, it says that nothing has really changed. That the prevailing ethos is to keep just ahead of the domestic competition and see Europe as an occasional windfall.

But what then of Brendan's stated aim of making Celtic a side that can compete in the Champions League? Though we did make it into third place last season for one Europa League round, it is clear that there was little, if any, progress on the European stage.

In fact, you can make a very strong case for saying that Celtic finished last season a weaker side than 12 months previously as the league tables showed.

So, does Brendan want to sell Kieran (and the sincerity of his comments that a club has a moral duty to young players is a given, and his track bears that out)?

There are, as usual at Celtic, more questions than answers.

If the rumoured discussions are true, that can only be because:

a. A release clause has been activated, allowing Kieran to talk to other clubs

or

b. Because Celtic gave other clubs permission to talk to Kieran.

By the rules, there are no other circumstances under which direct contact could be made between the player, who is under contract, and any other club.

If the answer is “a”, we can forget any fanciful talk of the fee going any higher as every club will know that to be the maximum they have to pay. It will also, though, be the figure agreed by Celtic when Kieran extended his contract, signing a six-year deal while just 12 months into an existing five-year contract.

If the answer is “b”, then Celtic are actively trying to sell a player who has only ever indicated his joy at being a Celtic player and his desire to remain.

So let the insinuations against Kieran, leaking from supposedly “in the know” Celtic people and apparently emanating from the club, end now.

Kieran has been an exemplary Celtic player in his years at the club. No amount of accusations of “greed” or claims that Brendan is “disgusted” change that and some of those issuing them should hang their heads in shame.

As a stupid football fan, I want Kieran to stay but I will wish him well if he leaves and hope that he collects the biggest gongs that football has to offer. He deserves everything good that the game can give.

This is not some Islam-Feruz-type of situation and nor has he, for example, signed a one-year deal before promptly opting for a hernia op to ready himself for a move elsewhere, while Celtic paid his salary.

This is a young man who has dedicated himself to his sport and to Celtic but, to some cynics, that counts for nothing when the aim is to protect certain executives by directing fans' ire at the player.

If we do get £25m to add to the £7m for Armstrong and the tens of millions from two Champions League campaigns, we can be fairly sure that a small chunk of that cash will go towards more diamond-mining, hoping to uncover the next mega-profit player as we struggle for respectability in Europe.

Some of those will flop, as several signings have done, and the few gems will be polished up to realise their full market value.

Celtic will continue to tread water in Europe while, hopefully (but not certainly), dominating in Scotland, prompting ironic questions of, “What more do you want?” and continued derisive remarks about our Scottish pub league.

As Hiram Johnson once said, “The first casualty, when war comes, is truth.” The same can be said of transfer speculation.--

A shrug farewell to Stuart Armstrong

Congratulations, Stuart - you have finally got that move to headier climes that you have been angling for for at least a year.

Yes, you can play football - quite often, very well.

But, Stuart, my amateur judgment is that you are not now and never will be the big shot in football that you might be if you were more focused on your performance than your ego and your haircut.

Alex Ferguson once bemoaned the fact that David Beckham could have been a great of the game, had he been focused on his football, rather than his outside activities.

You, Stuart, could probably have been a very good player - though by no means a great - had you not given the impression that you thought the game too prosaic for a man of your qualities.

You arrived from Dundee United, after Ronny Deila signed you and Garry Mackay-Steven, with a flourish and then tailed off when nobody was looking.

From that point, we saw some flashes of what you might produce until, the second half of Brendan's first season at which point you started to fly.

That was convenient for all parties as we thought we had a player and you had a contract decision to make.

Of course, it all went tits-up at Hampden when you played that clever pass that gave England a last-gasp equaliser.

Not for you, hoofing the ball up the park or playing the easier pass. No, Stuart, you grandstanded and cost your team and your country the chance of victory.

Why do I mention this? Because I saw that idiotic pass for what it was - ego-driven at the expense of the team.

I had my doubts then but was still hoping you would buy into Brendan's project and be a part of something special - but what did you do?

You hummed and hawed and made the entire close-season seem to be about you (did I say, "ego"? ) and then you signed ... a one-year contract.

Any of us with a little experience could see what that meant - you hadn't got the offers you wanted and were going to ride the Celtic train for one more stop and do the same damned thing again.

At one time, I'd have rated you as a better player than Callum McGregor but the contrasts could hardly be more stark.

While Callum has been every coach's dream, absorbing every bit of instruction and developing into a footballer who can reliably compete at the highest level of competition, that's not your style, is it, Stuart?

So, you're making more money - good for you.

You're an "English Premier League player" now - whoop-de-doo!

I had a dream that you started with Southampton with a flourish, tailed off and then tried to show off in high-visibility matches before putting in a real shift as it came to contract time.

But, who am I to comment on a law graduate who is good enough to indulge in Plebeian pursuits?

And, if you had only pissed off last season instead of being a distraction, a wage-thief and a drain on morale, I wouldn't have.

This move suits all parties - but mostly Celtic.

You will be mentioned in the same breath as the likes of Robert Snodgrass - players people once thought might do something in the game but chose lucrative mediocrity.

No player is too good for Celtic - but many have thought they were.

Time for spine and conscience to collapse King's house of cards

I am not going to start by sympathising with outgoing Scottish Football Association director, Gary Hughes, even though I don't believe that he did anything wrong by calling Rangers fans "the great unwashed" in 2006 - long before he was employed by the SFA.

What he said in that interview, so conveniently uncovered by The Rangers, (the original Rangers having been put into liquidation six years after the quote), was a silly joke. It was no more or less offensive than being called a "soap-dodging Weegie" by a fan one of the Edinburgh clubs but that's beside the point.

Hughes has gone, even though there was nothing illegal or motivated by religious bigotry or any other kind of hate speech.

But I won't weep for him.

Nor do I feel the need to rally to the side of Murdoch McLennan after the most contrived and absurd attacks on him having connections to companies involving Dermot Desmond and Denis O'Brien.

Both men will survive this and are presumably comfortably off. They have also been part of an institution noted for its incompetence on its better days and corruption on its worst.

You might argue that men of their business pedigree are needed to reform the SFA but I disagree. It is beyond redemption and only disbandment and a new organisation would have any hope of seeing the Scottish game being properly governed.

But what we should all be concerned about is the increasingly malign influence over the Scottish game of the convicted criminal, Dave King.

King has a grasp on truth, integrity and basic morality befitting a bona fide psychopath.

It is now so well known that a South African judge described him in court as a "glib and shameless liar" as to seem a tired cliché when repeated.

It is old news that he was a director of Rangers as the club ran a scheme of industrial-scale cheating and tax evasion, despite which he was considered a "fit and proper person" to be a director of a new club for which the SFA broke its own rules as well as the fundamental principles of good governance by allowing it to take a place in the Scottish Football League, for which it did not meet the basic criteria.

He sabotaged his own new club in order to pressure Mike Ashley into dumping it in the ditch, despite Ashley (no angel, by any means) being far better qualified to create a south Glasgow powerhouse.

He spun another intricate web of lies in order to take control of The Rangers acting in concert with two other parties to try to duck below company law.

And, of course, the takeover panel laughed him out of court when he claimed that nobody would sell their shares to him at the price dictated but, nevertheless, he would not make any offer as he lacked the funds to do so but, if so ordered, would buy the shares with the money that he claimed not to have.

As someone reluctant to make light of mental health issues, I would normally hesitate to make crude remarks about the psychological state of someone based purely on evidence prevented in the media but King's behaviour appears to be consistent with a serious personality disorder (which is not typically considered to be a mental health issue in the same way as the afflictions that many people suffer from through no fault of their own).

He self-evidently feels no embarrassment about telling the most absurd lies, which, at times it is difficult to believe that anyone - even the most rabid of the great unwashed - could possibly believe.

And he is not simply self-interested but more than willing to destroy anything that gets in his way, including the club that he is using for his own gain, or the game that sustains it.

Increasingly, he comes across as a man who would dynamite his own house rather than have the bank repossess it, regardless of the risks to the neighbours and any random passersby.

And yet he gets support in the media of the kind that goes beyond footballing bias or cultural affinity.

Over the last week, we have seen this from both ends of the Scottish journalistic spectrum.

At the bottom-feeder level is that international class buffoon, Keith Jackson.

Like King, Jackson apparently experiences neither embarrassment nor shame when shown to be glaringly wrong and, like King, he regularly trades in obvious falsehoods without discomfort.

In his latest piece on the supposed conflict of interest over McLennan, Jackson declares himself a dab hand at writing about company law.

This is from a man who once, despite having the benefit of the Internet, failed to correctly spell the word, "chateaubriand", on three consecutive occasions, as he attempted to boast to Twitter about how he was living the high life.

Graham Spiers is notionally a superior type of writer to Jackson, though he has rarely broken a story.

Spiers is of above average intelligence for a Scottish football writer, which is a compliment of a similar level to saying that Kris Boyd is of above average fitness for a man in his mid-thirties.

But Spiers is not as clever as he would like to think and he shares the same failing as Jackson in that he clearly believes that the public are too stupid to know when he is spinning them a line, even when he knows it very well, himself.

Spiers decided to tire us all by giving credence to King's most risible assertions that there is an appearance of something untoward in the McLennan situation, swatting aside every question about people who were clearly conflicted in their work with the SFA.

In doing so, these two have created a false sense in the media that legitimate questions are being asked, which has given some semblance of media credence to King's latest attempt to slip the noose of the Notice of Complaint raised in relation to Rangers securing a licence to play in European competitions through submitting false information.

The Hughes case is just one that points to ample evidence that the current modus operandi of The Rangers is to set the dogs on anyone with the slightest potential influence over events pertaining to that aberration of a club.

This follows on from a tradition once boasted of by their former PR grime-lord, Jack Irvine, whose emails - exposed by Charlotte Fakes (almost certainly Dave King) boasted of being able to coerce journalists because he knew "all their dirty little secrets".

I would not expect Spiers to have the kind of dark secrets that many Scottish football writers accrue on every second trip abroad, though an uncharacteristic moment of weakness is always possible.

In the case of Jackson, I would expect that his bar is set so low as to be difficult to embarrass by any heterosexual indiscretion.

King may well have dug some dirt on these two as he has clearly had people rooting into the backgrounds of others or he may be offering them different ways to get back into the fold (though despite his Ibrox bans, it's not clear that Jackson was ever really out of it).

But, whether through carrot or stick, King is clearly able to persuade high-profile members of the Scottish football media to write whatever he wants.

In doing so, he is further undermining the already crumbling foundations of a game that is thoroughly rotten.

Far from humouring his destructive bent, the media should be honouring their pledge to report the truth without fear or favour, and exposing King for the cynical charlatan that he is.

We await some decent members of the Scottish media developing both the spine and conscience to do what they surely know they should and bring down the  King house of cards.